April 14, 2010

Up from 16% last month. I guess the liberals' strategy of trying to delegitimate the movement as extreme and violent and racist hasn't worked out too well. At some point you're talking about so many people that it's incoherent to characterize them as marginal. Plus you may want to attempt to persuade them... perhaps even by addressing the substance of their criticisms.

***

Instapundit: "[This] suggests that complaints from Republican operatives about Tea Party amateurishness and lack of a national organization are wrong. When have those operatives ever achieved a 50% increase in identification in one month?"

What surprise is it that a 1/4 of our population can be walked off a cliff?

You can get a 10-20% of people to agree with a controversial statement by wording it in such a way that's it reasonable to not dismiss it out of hand.

Like the Saddam question: if you word it "could Saddam Hussein have had something to do with the 9/11 attacks?" then someone who doesn't keep up with the news might agree (you said "could" so that gives you wiggle room). Plus there's the effect that if someone asks a question out of the blue that you haven't given much thought, you may tend to agree rather than disagree. You'd rather agree with the person asking the question, because you assume they know something you don't.

"We never made a peep about deficits, as long as the money was being spent in foreign wars."

You might not remember this but back in 2008 there were a whole lot of conservative Republicans who viewed GWB unfavorably.

Why were so many Republicans so thoroughly unhappy with Bush by the 2nd term? Because he was TOO conservative? HA. It was because he was a big-spending, big-government Republican. I can find you a 100 op-ed pieces at the click of a button that say just that. But you wouldn't read those because you're not interested in the evidence.

For example, here's a quote from an angry op-ed written at the end of Bush's 2nd term:

The most basic Bush numbers are damning. If increases in government spending matter, then Mr. Bush is worse than any president in recent history. During his first four years in office -- a period during which his party controlled Congress -- he added a whopping $345 billion (in constant dollars) to the federal budget. The only other presidential term that comes close? Mr. Bush's second term. As of November 2008, he had added at least an additional $287 billion on top of that (and the months since then will add significantly to the bill). To put that in perspective, consider that the spendthrift LBJ added a mere $223 billion in total additional outlays in his one full term.

The same thing happens in polling. In a past state election here, a pollster on the phone asked questions like "even though you've voted Republican in the past, could you vote for a Democrat?" and "could you vote for a Democrat for State Treasurer who balanced state budgets?"

Well of course, I've voted for Democrats before, and a guy who's been in an administration that balanced budgets is obviously qualified for such a job, Democrat or Republican. In fact, I voted for the guy. But he lost, and it probably had more to do with what was left out of the poll questions: Such as the governor he served under had his own negatives, and likely voters remember these things.

We never made a peep about deficits, as long as the money was being spent in foreign wars."

Er, no. In 2006, independents and nominal conservatives either sat out the election or voted for Democrats and put them in power. Same in 2008. McCain had to run as an outsider, but it wasn't enough. The Republican brand was tarnished.

Unless you live in 100% liberal bubble land (Like certain places in California and New York) it is likely that even if YOU aren't in the Tea Party, you know some one who is or many who are members and supporters.

The experience of most people is that those members aren't wild eyed crazy racist radicals. They generally are the guy at the hardware store, the gas station, bank teller, neighbor, brother, cousin and so on.

When the liberals try to smear all Tea Party people, the public just doesn't see this as their own experience and recognizes a hatchet job when they see one.

What do the Tea Partiers want? Restraint. Enough fiscal restraint to prevent all of us being walked off a cliff. Of course that would mean the end of the gravy train ride on others backs that has become a way of life for SEIU, ACORN, Goldman Sachs, Mau Mauers and pretty much the whole chattering class. And that cannot be! Why it's...RACISSS!!

Okay so Tea Party is legit, real, organized. Show us some candidates. How about platforms and ideas beyond "we hate taxes"....? Tea Partiers are spending all their capital and time playing the victim. There is real work to be done according to this 24%-how about doing some. You know what they need?A community organizer-for reals.

Playing the victim? Really? Tea partiers helped to get a more conservative candidate elected to the Senate in Massachusetts of all places IN ORDER TO STOP HEALTHCARE. Obama and the Democrats didn't care. They didn't listen.

Althouse: "I guess the liberals' strategy of trying to delegitimate the movement as extreme and violent and racist hasn't worked out too well."

I shouldn't be surprised that the liberal comment went for the simple, there are plenty of stupid people tack. It is a reasonable way to go, but there was comedy gold just sitting there to be mined. All that is required is the usual divorce from reality. Try this for example:

Now that the press has accurately described the TEA party as racist, the rest of the (abundant) racists in the country now have a club to join. This alone accounts for the increase.

Gotta tell you HD--I havent taken you seriously since you mistook "ebonics" for "eugenics."

On another note, it remains to be seen if the Republicans can make something of the current environment--the only thing saving the dems right now is the ineptness of the republicans and their "leadership". I do not believe the republican leadership believes their profilgacy and pork led to their defeat. It may be the republicans are looking more like the whigs of the mid 19th century.

Real movements are not organized. That's what makes them scary. If government policy is so odious that people spontaneously take to the streets and protest, then the government ought to see that as a clue that it really fucked up.

Can anyone put up anything besides "we are real and we are not racist?"

We would like some assurance that our representatives appreciate the scope and the magnitude of the problem, and start presenting realistic plans for addressing it - preferably plans that do not require immense sacrifices of liberty.

Master Cyl--no need to correct typos on my behalf--this is a blog not a publishing firm! Re the substance of your post, I dont personally think the Republican party has a clue nor the ability to harness the energy of the current TP movement. Gonna be interesting in November.

Victoria--when in doubt attack the pollster and buttress your argument with their track record (oh wait). Mentioning Fox News is a proven technique as well. The notion of ad hominem argumentation must be new to you.

I know... food stamps and foreign aid. Too bad they represent 0.01 percent of the budget.

Cutting spending! But no new taxes, and don't cut anything I like.

And you wonder why people think the tea party is a joke. And the suspicion that "spending" is code... for something else. Something like Reagan's welfare queens in Cadillacs... something about class, and race.

Real movements are not organized. That's what makes them scary. If government policy is so odious that people spontaneously take to the streets and protest, then the government ought to see that as a clue that it really fucked up.

Read recent history. Learn about the New Left- the so called progressives. They were not organized, they felt government policy was odious, they took to the streets to protest- many times in a spontaneous manner. They got organized. They are the Democratic Party today. All because the government- the Democrats at the time- fucked up.

Well Monty--I am not a participant in the TP movement (that sounded bad), but to your point: you are correct that the ability to control discretionary spending is very limited as most spending is mandated by continuing programs.

This will come as a shock to you, but I do advocate a considerably more limited defense budget--Inasmuch as (not sure) some 60 percent are personnel costs, we should cut back our forces considerably--pull out of NATO and let the Euros figure out what they are going to do; pull out of Korea--they can take care of themselves. In short I advocate a much reduced force posture for the US.

It is entitlements that wreak havoc on the budget, and to that end, I personally advocate for eliminating social security and medicare (good libertarian that I am). Eliminate all subsidies and public funding of higher education and agricultural subsidies.

I am also a realist and am aware that none of this is going to happen. But there are ways to reduce spending; its just that the political class on both sides of the aisle dont have the stones (or ovaries) to do it.

Sofaking: "We would like some assurance that our representatives appreciate the scope and the magnitude of the problem, and start presenting realistic plans for addressing it - preferably plans that do not require immense sacrifices of liberty."

This summarizes the narcissism of the TP movement -- every Representative in Congress got there by garnering the most votes in their district. Same for Senators.

The fact that your candidate did not win does not make those who did illegitimate, or that if they vote for a bill you oppose that they are (as one earlier commenter put it) evil.

The beauty of the tea party is that we are amateurs and poorly organized. We are not Republicans, we are people who want to tear down big government. Not by any means necessary. Not yet anyway. 8)

The amusing thing to me is how much time progressives spend trying to define us negatively to discredit the movement. What a foolish approach!

Cogent progressives would listen to what the tea party folks are saying. I do not think we have common ground frankly, but at least they could get the message that they are going too fast to slip any of their agenda past us. They have awakened the sleeping giant. Their best bet would be to see if they can wait till the giant goes back to his nap.

Realistically, the giant will sleep after his work is done and progressives are scheming out of office rather than in. But those smart enough to listen may be able to tone it down enough to save their career. May being the operative word.

I propose we cut the department of education and give the money back to the states. The department would need a staff of 50 to measure the outcome of what the states are doing, collect the ideas that work, and distribute them to the states. The annual budget would be a million annually tops.

I propose we cut the government b'crats keeping us from accessing our own oil and gas. Ditto with the impediments to building refineries.

Monty--between TMink and I we have proposed quite a few areas where it is possible to cut expenditures--and you would find me in full agreement on the question of what you call "coporate welfare" whatever you mean by that.

Given that support for the Continental cause during the American Revolution was never more than 33%, no wonder the usual suspects are running scared, but out of steam. All their talking points are refuted with ridiculous ease.

As to what gets cut, the current insolvency of Social Security and Medicare will lead to a demand by the generations now in the labor pool to be cut - and it will happen.

As to defense, the "centrist", "pragmatic" Clinton administration already cut that by 40%. But, by all means, let's cut some of the Cabinet departments that were created as political favors - HHS, HUD, Education, Energy, and Transportation, not to mention regulatory bureaucracies like the EPA

As I had stated in a previous post, there was no COLA this year for Social Security and VA compensation. That was a step in the right direction. And, as I had stated before, can you imagine the outrage from the left if Bush or the Republicans had done this? Even without the COLAs the deficit is outrageously out of control.

AllenS--indeed there were no COLAs for my VA comp and social security--I was in such financial straits I actually had to go out and take a part time position--the shame--imagine a retiree taking care of him or herself--and AARP was nowhere to be seen.

Kerrey, a 1992 presidential candidate and now president of The New School in New York City, says panels such as the Bowles-Simpson commission can help to create that scenario.

"What you could get is support among the populace for the exceptionally unpopular things you need to do to solve this problem," he says.

Bowles has been in touch with Microsoft's Steve Ballmer about creating a deficit-reduction video game that would enable anyone with a computer to take a stab at balancing the budget, much like the 1994 commission did.

I know... food stamps and foreign aid. Too bad they represent 0.01 percent of the budget.

You know Monty, you'd have a bit more credibility if you actually provided some facts to your rantings.

If you look here you will see that we could very well cut the defense budget back to 2000 levels and I agree with Roger that we should do so by allowing our 'allies' to start providng for their own defense.

Now, that leaves another $2-3 trillion. in spending that we can start slashing away at. Sorry but I didn't see a 'corporate welfare' category when perusing the budget although that might be the Obama bailouts so yes I suggest we cut those too.

I propose Tea Partiers ask for an appraisal and audit of all the assets owned by the federal government so that we know just where we are financially. The current US balance sheet available on the web includes only cash and cash equivalents as government assets. Real estate, and the assets of government sponsored enterprises, such as TVA, VA, USPS, and who knows what other property holding government entities there are, are not included. The federal government owns the majority of real estate in most states west of the Mississippi. Once we know what we have, then we will know how to go forward with a recovery plan.

BTW, military retirees not only did not get a COLA this year, their withholding was increased, and so they actually took a cut in 2010.

Alpha cites a poll suggesting 80 percent of the tea partiers are white--not too bad considering that only about 12 percent of the population of the US is black. Hispanics are a separate category of course and may self identify with a particular melanine content test.

I am not clear what your statistic means, other than you do not appear to realize what the racial composition of the US is. Go to factfinder.census.gov and you can make the appropriate determinations.

National health care reform, which could be signed into law this week, has a key new benefit for families that will not apply to military families enrolled in the Tricare health insurance program.

A key expansion of benefits in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, HR 3590, is a requirement for health insurers to cover unmarried children up to the age of 26 who are carried on the policy of a parent.

This change, like the rest of the bill, does not apply to Tricare, according to Defense Department and congressional sources.

I am interested, Alpha, in what ethnic groups do you consider "white." Be aware that the US census, post 1990 considers Hispanics to be a cultural and not a racial group. As any latino could tell you, me included, that Hispanics come in all shades of color. I hope you are not so racist to consider all hispanics to be non-white. Were that the case you would be confusing the concept of race (a bullshit category to start with) with cultural identification.

No, House, unfortunately I was not on the force in 1968. But I was there and saw how and who started the riots. I was also smart enough to leave before the stupidity started.

Also, recently many of the so called leaders have come out and stated that their main goal was to start a riot, damage property, and in general create havoc and chaos in the city. statute of limitations is long over for conspiriacy.

white people make up about 80% of the US so by that figure, the Tea Party is representational of the nation.

That presumes that Tea Party demographics are evenly distributed across the country.

If there are more Tea Party members in states with proportionally higher non-white populations, however -- such as the deep South -- then non-whites are underrepresented in the Tea Party. Similarly, if there are more Tea Party members in states with disproportionately low non-white populations -- like the Dakotas -- then non-whites are over-represented. I think I said that right.

Not that it makes a difference. A citizen is a citizen is a citizen. White or non-white.

That presumes that Tea Party demographics are evenly distributed across the country.

It also presumes that the racial makeup of the Tea Party is relevent to begin with :-) I mean I honestly don't recall anyone decrying the lack of diversity in the weekly anti-war protests, or of ANSWER or Code Pink. Yet when a protest movement springs up over massive government spending and yet another unaffordable entitlement program suddenly we're counting the number of white faces as if that means anything.

Then again to the liberal ideology that sees race in everything, I suppose it has to mean something.

the racial makeup of the tea party is only relevant to those in the party who are just dying to be thought of as mainstream and representative. the later, the "we stand for everyone" is when they are most dangerous. it is called a self-proclaimed mandate - think faux noise "fair and balanced" (why? because we say so that's why).

besides would you invite someone in your home who wears a hat with tea bags attached to it?

Like the Saddam question: if you word it "could Saddam Hussein have had something to do with the 9/11 attacks?" then someone who doesn't keep up with the news might agree (you said "could" so that gives you wiggle room).

"Could" doesn't just give you wiggle room. "Could" means that you should respond in the affirmative unless it is impossible for the scenario to be true.

E.g., the answer to "could Oswald have really been a patsy" is "yes". But the answer to the question "did Oswald kill JFK" is also "yes". Any statement of fact includes the caveat "based on what we know".

the racial makeup of the tea party is only relevant to those in the party who are just dying to be thought of as mainstream and representative.

The problem with assuming that a movement has to be racially balanced to be "mainstream" or "representative" is that it cuts both ways. The tea party movement is disproportionately white, and its opponents are disproportionately nonwhite. Ergo, by the logic you're using, your position isn't representative or mainstream either. Neither, for that matter, are Obama supporters or Democratic Party members; both groups have racial makeups significantly different from US demographics.

@DBQ, I know they're flowers and not teabags, but the mental imagery of hat and scones and jam reminds me of Mary Poppins! Maybe Miss Poppins is just the practically-perfect-in-every-way, squeaky-clean spokesperson the Tea Party needs!

Revenant said...I can't wait to be a racial minority. After years of waiting, I finally won't have to listen to blacks and hispanics whine about how their failures are due to the evil white majority anymore."

gosh yes Rev. I'd much rather you wail about being left out and left behind due to your IQ.